Chris troutman wrote:And this un-accomplished Wikipedian with less than three hundred edits complains that they've been bitten? Ludricrous.
Mellowed Fillmore wrote:You may think that your civility campaign is righteous, but eventually... the community will run out of patience and force you stop.
"Me and the e-gang/cabal don't have to be civil, especially to noobs. Now we's gonna e-beat youse into submission until you learns your place."
Arena Football Rooter wrote:...if we got rid of everyone who was rude from time to time, we wouldn't have enough people left to maintain our content. I realize this message will likely fall on deaf ears, but at least now you won't be able to say you weren't warned.
"Here's another excuse for me to ignore civility. I must protect the encyclopedia from this grave threat at all costs."
Drmies wrote:I looked at the stuff that Tracysear posted on Chris's talk page, and I would find it very, very difficult to keep my cool after trying to read that in good faith.
"I too can choose to ignore AGF and CIVIL at my sole discretion, admin expectations and (mis)conduct be damned."
Drmies wrote:Don't exaggerate, please.
"I'm Drmies, and I endorse the troutman and his incivility."
AutomaticStrikeout wrote:This isn't an RfA. Using someone's admin status against them like that is a weak move. Are you prepared to take up Chris troutman's work once you've run him off the site for occasional impoliteness?
"Admins only have to be on their bestest behaviour during RfA season. After that, it's IAR, all the time, but only for admins, and you aren't allowed to call them out on that. Don't forget that us entrenched editors are irreplaceable, unlike yourself, maggot."
Northern Antarctica wrote:Also, I'm aware that nobody has proposed sanctions yet, but I've seen enough of these threads to know which the wind is blowing.
"I'm still at the 10-yard line, but you're as good as gone so I'm gonna do my victory dance now."
Doug Weller wrote:Whatever, ChatGPTZero was 98% certain that the text I fed it was AI generated.
"Whatever, I do what I want. Respect my authoritah."
----------
Am I doing this right?
I edited for ~5 years under a static IP. Not a lot of edits (1700-odd) for that sort of duration, but I only edited at work during times when I would otherwise alternate between staring at a progress bar and the wall.
Before I started editing I gnomed and read the drama boards for their entertainment value, and in doing so picked up most of the common policies and things that trip up new editors. Once I got board-bored I shifted to improving articles in my area of interest, focusing on neglected articles and doing minor sentence rewrites, expanding sections, adding references - nothing major. Apparently the fact that I was an IP-editing untermensch whose edits were actually coherent, properly cited using sources that were WP:RS and :V, and had edit summaries was cause for great suspicion. I never was outright accused of being a sock, but every now and then I'd have someone get snippy and question my previous edit. A few times I'd revert an obvious vandal and get reverted and uw-vandalism'd, with no response when I questioned it and cited WP:BP (just to indicate I was aware of it). Fine, be accusatory and bitey, I can AGF like the civil editor I'm supposed to be and take the high road. It just wears you down just a little each time it happens.
I quit after a longtime editor decided I was a vandal after noticing I messed up some table formatting and reverted me. I always preview my edits before submitting, so I'm not sure what happened; regardless, I screwed up and didn't notice, I'll admit that much. I ignored the fact they rolled back all of my edits on that page, even though all except the last were accurate and correctly sourced/cited. Then they started going through my edit history and critiquing them in a manner that I don't believe any other reasonable person would (e.g. I reverted an edit that added excess detail, noted it as such in the edit summary, and they told me "sources aren't excess detail."). I AGF'd a few times and explained my edits but wrote them off once they replied with "OK? I didn't revert you."
I figured if an editor of well over a decade with a large edit count can be that obtuse, fail to AGF, and insist I'm a vandal, even though a cursory glance at previous messages indicating skepticism and my edit history would dispel that notion, then their behaviour must be de facto sanctioned by the community-at-large and/or the rules governing the project don't work due to their subjectiveness and uneven enforcement. I have no interest in being a part of a community that reminds me of middle- and high-school cliques. Sorry for bitching, I'm sure everyone here knows this stuff